Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump pick's in line for FEC after enduring Democratic jabs

Trey Trainor's confirmation hearing

Republican attorney Trey Trainor appeared before the Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday. He is expected to be confirmed to the FEC.

Sara Swann/The Fulcrum

Much to the chagrin of good governance groups, it appeared clear Tuesday that conservative campaign lawyer Trey Trainor is on his way to a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

Republicans said nothing at all critical, Democrats said nothing supportive and Trainor said almost nothing revelatory about his views during a Senate confirmation hearing lasting less than an hour and a half.

The pro forma nature of the proceedings was a clear signal that, as he runs for re-election, President Trump will be able to break with precedent by adding just one person, and from his own party, to the panel charged with regulating how presidential, congressional and outsider organizations raise and spend campaign contributions.


The longstanding practice has been FEC commissioners are nominated in bipartisan pairs, but much about the FEC hasn't followed precedent in years. It hasn't had a new member since 2013 and since September it's been almost entirely neutered for lack of a four-person quorum.

Trainor's presence would allow the agency to consider complaints and perform routine oversight during the height of the campaign season, but launching investigations or revamping policy would be almost impossible because four votes are required and a 2-2 split on ideological lines would be nearly assured.

Democrats and campaign finance watchdog groups are eager for the agency to get back on the job, but not with Trainor as the one reopening the doors. They say his career as an elections lawyer for Republicans in Texas and for Trump's 2016 campaign, and his clearly hands-off view about regulating or disclosing much about money in politics, don't bode well for the FEC over what would be a six-year term.

"I view the role of the FEC first and foremost as giving the American people confidence in our electoral system," Trainor told the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

All three Democratic senators on hand voiced disappointment that Trump has not done what party leaders have asked and named Shana Broussard, a senior attorney at the FEC since 2015, to become a commissioner alongside Trainor.

"Abandoning bipartisan norms and pushing forward a controversial nominee is not the way to do it," Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said of restoring the agency to working order. "Moving forward in this way will do more harm than good."

Asked by Tom Udall of Arizona if he supports a bipartisan pairing, Trainor said "the commission is in need of new ideas and new perspectives."

Republicans emphasized the importance of restoring functionality to the FEC. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the most prominent campaign finance deregulator in Congress and a member of the committee, appeared briefly to say he would like to see Trump submit five more nominations in order for a total turnover of membership. (The three current commissioners are all serving on expired terms, as the law allows. By law no more than three members of each party can sit on the panel, so Trump would have to pick some Democrats to grant McConnell's wish.)

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, also a panel member, said Trainor's sole qualification was his "long career as a conservative political operative."

When asked if he would recuse himself from matters before the FEC involving the president, Trainor said he would "approach all issues objectively," but refused to promise such a "blanket recusal" if confirmed.

Republicans lobbed mostly softballs at the nominee, while Democrats pressed for specifics on how he would handle particular issues. Trainor gave nonanswers to almost all the questions, saying he "didn't want to opine on something I would do as a commissioner" before being confirmed. But he promised to work to forge consensus on the commission.

Chairman Roy Blunt of Missouri did not say when the panel would send the nomination to the full Senate.


Read More

Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less